Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:00, 23 April 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

User:TheRegicider's concerns

Academics

What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the statement is to simply convey facts, not to bringforth a bias viewpoint with the purpose of demeaning the school. Your bad parallel example regarding UCLA graduates fails because it puts emphasis on a negative point that could be made about ANY school, and if it was actually said in an article about UCLA, it would represent a bias. It is true that out of the total number of graduates of any school some will go to "bad ones." In contrast, the statement in the UCR article are appropriate because it is specific to that paricular program and group of students, thus it is an imporant and relevant point to make. We can work on the making the link more specific, if necessary. Insert-Belltower 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think AUCAMAN is familiar with the the important of med school admissions. The fact is, a proportion of science majors are actually premed. (non-science majors are usually out of touch with the premed thing) Every premed knows how difficult it is to get into medical school, and one of the important indicators they use is how well do premeds applying from their institution do. They look at where past graduates have gotten interviews at and where they ultimately were admitted to. Medschool admission is more competitive than law school, and it's much more stressful than college admissions. The reality is that UCR students don't fare well when applying to med school. There is no bias. The best source available (so far) is from MDApplicants.com which allows a simple search of UCR applicant data, but it does not permit linking to these results. However, wikipedia requires VERIFIABILITY, not necessary "LINKABILITY." So this information stands. AND yes, it's pertinent. If only 24 students are selected for UCR/UCLA, then it BEGS the question, "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?" UCRGrad 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Why are you bold-facing this? And I did not originally write these. I'm quoting User:TheRegicider's comments above. Aucaman 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see where you wrote that you were quoting TheRegicider. In that case, my responses were directed at him. THanks. UCRGrad 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Removed: "but are frequently limited to D.O. and third-tier programs, ....". Statement links to the homepage -- # "MDApplicants.com (UC Riverside data)". Retrieved March 31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help))... No UCR profile on MDApplicants.com exists and information is not verifiable. In addition, UCRGrad begs the question "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?" I contend that there were less than 100 applicants last year and that the rate of acceptance is higher at UCR than nationally. (I believe the number of applicants is around 60, but I could be wrong). I do know that they are expected to receive between 100 and 200 applications in this upcoming application cycle. Regardless, none of this information is pertinent to the article, just an FYI that saying "hundreds" of students apply is a misinformed exaggertion.

"Univeristy of Chinest Refugees"

The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames: I think that is completely appropriate to mention common school nicknames, this has already been discussed thoroughly on this board. Additionally, just because another UC's Wiki page doesn't have a common name associated with it shouldn't make it an issue of this article. Additionally, they are not explicity offensive, perhaps they are only offensive to you. Insert-Belltower 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

<--- well whoever thinks that nickname is not offensive is a piece of sh** ignorant a** hole. keep in mind the previous statement is not explicitly offensive, perhaps only to those who feel it is directed toward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

While the nickname may or may not be offensive, yours is certainly uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIV. Calwatch 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, tifego, neither Insert-Belltower nor myself (UCRGrad) inserted that nickname into the article... If there any admins here, this user is obviously not contributing in a constructive manner here...I'm wondering if there's any action we can take?UCRGrad 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The action you can take is to kindly ignore it. Actually, I think you (and possibly Calwatch) are missing the irony in his statement that he used to illustrate his point. His point was that this nickname, and "UC Rejects" and the others, are offensive nicknames, and that it is ridiculous to assert otherwise as Insert-Belltower did. He is undoubtedly correct about that. Also, both you and Insert-Belltower put "UC Rejects" into the article many times over, and you even added obviously-false references to back it up. Anyway, they aren't in the article now, so I won't continue about that. –Tifego _{04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I was referring to UC Rejects when I posted my original reply, and then cut and pasted it down here. I would agree with the removal of the Chinese Refugees name. As UCRGrad say, neither he nor I inserted it.

Insert-Belltower 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the Chinese Refugees nickname. I agree that it is not commonly used. However, UC Rejects IS a common nickname, and I need to find a citation that meets minimum standards here. I will not use the wiki "backronyms" article as a source, but I will find another one. UCRGrad 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Based on this large student body, this has earned UCR the nickname of "University of Chinese Refugees". <---- UC Berkeley also earned the nickname of University of Chinese Boys. What, never heard of it? Well it's cause I just made it up, probably what you just did. Take this off. Extremely offensive, unfounded, and just plain stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

The UCR reference has been cited, and is not just a "made-up."

Insert-Belltower 02:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's a self reference, and irrelevant to the article. There are no references in Nexis to "UC Rejects". Thus, it is just a gratuitous cheap shot. Calwatch 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and Review Stats

As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real?

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have to pay for information them does not make it an invalid source. Using your logic, a researcher wouldn't be able to cite journal articles because most publishers, with a few exceptions, require a paid subscription, either for paper or online copies. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com and enter in "CANCER" in the search, then try to download one of the journal articles that comes up.

I am offended that you would imply that I am being dishonest.

This aside, you do have free access to the US News at a public library where the US News magazine is usually on file.

Insert-Belltower 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and World Report is freely available at your local library. I'm not sure what the big concern is here. This is a completely invalid and irrelevant argument here. This conversation will go a lot easier for everyone if you would refrain from making arguments that you KNOW are lame. Seriously. UCRGrad 03:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Please no name calling. I do agree with UCRGrad, though, that just because a source is in printed form or requires payment does not remove its legitimacy. Calwatch 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

StudentsReview.com

StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

students surveyed on StudentsReview.com would not return to UCR if given the choice, with one student reviewer calling the campus "an absolute abomination." <--- how is this possibly not subjective? not only are you quoting a WEBSITE, you are using ONE student's OPINION. i happened to take a look at your "source" and you failed to mention that the sample size was 48 students. i'm sure that changes things a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.118.98 (talk • contribs)

I doubt PR's sample size return from UC Riverside was much bigger. There were a lot of negative comments on StudentsReview..."an absolute abomination" pretty much sums them up. However, I don't have a problem with removing that one in particular, only because quotes from individual users does not Wiki's policies...On the other hand, the survey conducted by StudentsReview.com is perfectly acceptable. It's not ideal, and it's not rigorous, but it's acceptable as verifiable information. UCRGrad 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

StudentsReview.com barely skirts acceptability of WP:V. A student newspaper or quotes from a Fiske's Guide or Yale Daily News Guide would be much better. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

UV Theater

UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have enought information to call the statement "that all theaters have a lower patronage of moviegoers at 9 in the morning" negative. In this case, this statement is explaining why the UV is one for classes in the morning. Nevertheless, I would be open to a rewording of the statement, if you wish.

Insert-Belltower 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the conclusion would work. It could also be spun as an innovative joint use project for the university. You don't know either way, unless you can find an article or document as to the agreement the school made with the movie theater, or why it was purchased. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big hoo-hah is here. I'm not sure what kind of magical imagery you're coming up with, but it's a simple fact: patronage is SO low at the UV theater, that they don't lose any money by just shutting down and letting UCR have its lectures there. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's just a bit unusual, and it's clearly because patronage is low. Do you think if enough customers came in to make a good profit that they'd kick them out and have classes instead?? NO WAY! ...however, to make the logical leap and say "oh that's bias, that's bias" is propesterous. UCRGrad 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Who owns the theater? How much does UCR pay the theater? Nowadays, a lot of theaters don't even operate before 4 PM anyway, because the cost of running matinees compared with ticket take is so low. Without understanding the joint use agreement between the owners and the university (or why the university decided to build a movie theater), we don't know. It should be noted that a lot of big lecture halls at other schools are used for movies and big events in evenings and weekends, so this is not much different. Calwatch 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really doesn't matter that much for the purpose of this article. If you would like to do some extra-research to be included on this subject then I would say go ahead. But, again I don't think it matters that much.

Insert-Belltower 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment

"Environment is also a key factor that influences student life." Great. Doesn't belond in an encyclopedia article. It's an opinion of the author and not a fact. It further contributes to this piece reading as an opinion not an entry of pure factual information. That section as a whole, is more relevant to an entry on Riverside and not the University itself. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life. The Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution. In a comparison by the National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003), the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was found to be the most polluted region based on year-round soot measurements when compared to other U.S. cities. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine (2004) published results from a longitudinal study comparing pollution in southern California communities with lung health in children. Not only did the authors find that Riverside pollution levels were amongst the highest, but they also discovered that air in this region can damage childrens' lungs. . . The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo below, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." Should be cut. It makes no mention of the school itself. Obviously there should be a link to the city of Riverside, or even a statement that says "The city of Riverside is know for high levels of smog." If the reader wants to investigate further, that's fine. You wouldn't read an article about "The Bush Doctrine" and find a large section about the disputed 2000 election.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment: I believe that this is an important point to mention in the UCR article because it directly has an impact on student life. Other Wiki articles on UC campuses describe the university environment.

From the UCI wiki article Student Life section: “Due to its location in a preplanned suburban community, general student apathy, reputation as an academic or suitcase school (students tend to go home on the weekends, but stay on campus during the week nights), UCI has had a reputation as a quieter college town. Newport Beach, which is less than 10 minutes away, is home to a vibrant night life.”

This briefly describes key factors the will influence a student’s life at UCI, even though some of which are negative. The UCR article is not out of the ordinary in this regard. Insert-Belltower 02:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Riverside is sometimes referred to as "The 909," carries somewhat of a negative connotation <--- may be true, but what's your source???? stick with the facts.

The source is already cited in the article, last I checked.

Insert-Belltower 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a sentence with a reference should do, though. The air in the Inland Empire has cleaned up dramatically since 10 or 20 years ago, and the smog isn't much of an issue. Calwatch 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch, I realize that you've probably heard a lot of hearsay about the smog, and you may even have personal experience. However, the latest pollution data (cited) as well as a recent NEJM article (cited) supports the notion that Riverside is still very much polluted...and damages lungs in children. The issue is verifiability, not truth. Regardless, I can tell you that the smog in Riverside is the worst I've seen anywhere. With regard to references on "The 909," it's pretty much common knowledge what the 909 means. I did cite a reference, but I will use one that's not from wiki. However, I'm now concerned that this individual is attempting to suppress truth/facts and censor potentially harmful facts about UCR through any means possible. UCRGrad 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

As I said before, I think this article has come a long way from when it was 6 months ago, when my attempts to put the SAT score and GPA of the average freshman were reverted and I was attacked personally for including that information. (See talk archives.) But at this point, no one is "suppressing" verifiable negative information about the school. Some of the stuff you are defending are pretty ancillary to the campus. Calwatch 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, if we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with a rewording of this statement regarding sports attendence, but assert that the principal point of it is true and can be fully cited. I will look for more information on this subject. I would not have a problem with adding the Div.I information, as long as it's cited and placed in the appropriate place.

There still needs to be a mention of the recent Athletic sucesses. If we're going to discuss low attendence we must discuss the fact that two teams just qualfied fro the NCAA tourney in the first time in school's history. TheRegicider 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding this information. SoCalAlum 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the lock prevents me. I just created my account, I normally just edited with out, so I'm considered new.TheRegicider 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

General Comments: I am somewhat amused by the lines: "This article is a disgrace. It's biased and purposely negative. Certain people are using this page as a way to deter students from attending, because they had a bad experience. This is not the venue, it needs to stop."

There is absolutely not validity or proof for these statements. However they reveal your own personal bias towards this article and your agenda to change it as you see fit.

Have a Nice Day

Insert-Belltower Insert-Belltower 02:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop accusing others of having personal agendas. WP:AGF. Your comments above that look constructive, but the rest ("General Comments") was unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. –Tifego _{03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, Tifego, if you scroll up, you'll find that the vast majority of accusations that there is a personal agenda have been from others directed at IB and me. I have even taken the time to list many of the offenses from DtEW in a separate dedicated section. You should check it out. UCRGrad 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So? It's not helping the article. Stop trying to put the blame on DtEW. –Tifego _{03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Lots of schools have poor attendance for sporting events, and most of them are commuter schools. The other schools in the Big West Conference (Fullerton State, UC Irvine, San Jose State) are not known for high attendance either. See, for instance, this editorial from the student newspaper (scared of the thought of the usual 1,000 patron crowd in a 12,000 seat arena); assistant sports editor column complaining about sports apathy, etc. Calwatch 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What then is the problem with mentioning it? I wouldn't object if the same thing was said in articles on the other commuter schools.

Insert-Belltower 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Haider (pronounced 'Hater')

Where is the source that his name is pronounced this way and what's the significance? Aucaman 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to know how to correctly pronounce something.

Insert-Belltower 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning, then you shouldn't mind the change, which is made according to this pronunciation guide. –Tifego _{03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

<-- yes it is important to "know how to correctly pronounce something" but a name like "haider" isn't too difficult to decipher. if that's your reasoning, then we can go through the entire article and sound (prounounced "sownd") out word for our ("owr") readers ("reeeduhrs"). take this supercilious garbage out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

I agree. Aucaman 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It could be prounounced "HAY-ter" or "HIGH-ter." It's not obvious to me, and it wasn't obvious to the 3 people sitting next to me just now either. UCRGrad 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

I was just about to write the same thing. Insert-Belltower 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not "hay-der" or "high-der"? The first of those seems most logical to assume. –Tifego _{03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

More neutral would be to use the IPA alphabet. Any linguists in the house? Calwatch 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

so you decided to help the readers pronounce haider but no help w/ Rubidoux??

I didn't write the paragraph containing Rubidoux. I don't go around changing other people's work, unless there are factual errors or things that I can correct. In addition, I'm wondering if you can cite some grammatical rule that dictates the pronounciation of the prefix "Hai-"...thanks. UCRGrad 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubidoux is pronounced in the standard way with the French "dough" as the last syllable. I agree Haider could go many ways. Calwatch 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't obvious to me or the 4 other people sitting next to me. whether, it's pronounced hay or high, the content of the passage is not affected whatsoever. potaytoes, potahtoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

Archiving

This page is in a serious need of some archiving, but most of the discussions seem recent. What do you guys think? Aucaman 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think everything above the "NPOV editing" section can safely be archived at this time. –Tifego _{02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Calwatch 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Aucaman 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Insert-Belltower 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV to POV check

Finally, some good news. I've replaced the POV dispute tag with a POV-check tag. The article has made significant improvements NPOV-wise, for which I compliment all users involved. Right now, the article fits into the "Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something" category. I don't plan to defend the POV-check, so anyone with a decent reason should feel free to remove it. Deltabeignet 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely good news, and I agree with Deltabeignet that this article has made significant progress in its neutrality. However, I replaced {{POV check}} with {{POV}} because I think the choice between the tags boils down to how active the dispute is, not so much how serious the article's POV problems are. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the article's NPOV status in the past few days, so it's still an active dispute. Tag placement isn't a huge issue for me, so anyone can feel free to change back to POV check if they feel it's warranted. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Giving Rates

According this this article in the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510011) the national percentage of alumni donations is only 12%, with the top schools like Harvard at about 40%. The stat's purpose is clearly to paint a negative picture of the school, with the lack of context blowing it out of purportion. Even the, these stats hardly hold much water when it comes to rankings. US News and Review (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php) allows them to account for no more than 5% of their total scores. Thusly, the statistic is already incorporated into the article via the USNR ranking. I'm going to delete it until a justifiable explaination is given. TheRegicider 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see why somebody tried to take out that line. I don't think the purpose of the statistic was to paint a negative picture of the school, per se. I mean, I looked at the US News reference, and it checks out. I agree that alumni giving rate is only a small component of overall ranking, but I think it says a lot when a school's overall rank in alumni donations is dead last in the country. I also saw on US News that they also give the school's rank based on alumni giving, not just the percentage...since they have two separate columns for this statistics and they mention it in the big table, I'm pretty sure it's important. I also don't see how the statistic is already incorporated in the article, as I don't htink it's mentioned anywhere else. So I'm adding it back in, as I honestlyl don't see a very good reason to take it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.178.207 (talk • contribs)

Since the article mentions the overrall USNR ranking, it's redundant to include statistics they used to come up with that ranking. The stat lacks context, the giving rate is not far above the national average. If it held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking. So given its little importance, the fact that we already cite the total ranking, we don't need it. It's staying out.TheRegicider 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the user above and NOT with Theregicider. It's important simply because USNWR chose to report it separately. When I read scientific articles, the authors will make conclusions at the end. This is like the "overall rank." However, people reading these articles will demand to know how these conclusions were derived. People want to know HOW the conclusions were determined, i.e. HOW they came up with "overall rank." Since you say that alumni giving rate is a part of how overall rank is determined by USNWR, you are obliged to include it.

As an aside,I've looked at the change log and it looks like you have been systematically removing information that makes this school look bad. I'd like you to stop doing that. Some of your changes are reasonable, but others really are not. In this case, they're not. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs)

You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself. How is anyone supposed to take seriously remarks that aren't even accounted for? The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article. The stat as it is now lacks context. No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not. For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc. Few if any of the other school's article include this stat, as the UNSR ranking as a whole already includes it. I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative. You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this. TheRegicider 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses to ALL of TheRegicider's Arguments against Including Alumni Giving Rates

TheRegicider has argued that we shouldn't include alumni giving rates. I have summarized his reasons and explained why he is incorrect or his logic is fault.

Reason 1: National alumni donation rate is 12%, at Harvard about 40%. Therefore, the lack of context "blows it out of proportion." (UCR is 5%)

This is irrelevant. The fact is, 5% is STILL extremely low compared to those national average and Harvard. Put differently, the national average is 2.4x higher than UCR, and Harvard is 8x higher. We might even consider adding the previous sentence in too.

Reason 2: USNWR only gives 5% weight to alumni giving rates. Since we have already listed overall rank of UCR, we don't need to list facts that comprise the overall rank.

This reasoning makes no sense. As another user already tried to explain to TheRegicider, people don't want to just know the overall rank, they want to know how it was derived -- what facts or statistics contributed to that overall rank. If all of the component scores were not important, USNews wouldn't have listed them out in their master table -- they would have simply listed each school next to its numerical rank and that's it.

Reason 3: Theregicider changes his argunent slightly and writes that if alumni giving rates "held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking."

This is also untrue. If alumni giving rates did NOT hold any real significant, US News would NOT have used it to calculate the overall rank TO BEGIN WITH! The FACT that USNWR even considers this statistics is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that it IS important.

Reason 3: You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself.

Misplaced Pages allows unsigned editors. Using the fact that some authors didn't sign their work is not a valid reason to revert or to make accusations (especially when both anonymous users EXPLAINED their reasoning in discussion.)

Reason 4: The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article.

Indeed is not an inherently biased word. In context it does not add bias either. It is simply a linker word that maintains the direction of the paragraph.

Reason 5: "No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not."

As explained above, the national average is 2.4x as high as UCR's alumni giving rate. It IS LOW. ..however just in case people aren't familiar with the national average, the sentence also qualifies this percentage with UCR's nationwide rank in terms of alumni giving. That way, there's no way you could be confused about whether 5% is high, middle, or low. It is low because UCR is ranked LAST in alumni giving.

Reason 6: For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc.

Again, UCR's nationwide RANK for alumni giving is also specified in the sentence you are trying to delete. Therefore, it really makes little difference that public universities have lower giving rates - UCR is the LOWEST of ALL public universities. Whether or not rates have declined is irrelevant as well.

Reason 7: Few if any of the other school's article include this stat,

This article is far more comprehensive and informative than articles from other schools on Wiki. As many people have pointed out in the past, using other wikipedia articles is NOT a valid reference. I will also reiterate that other Wiki articles on colleges are NOT the benchmark for how a college article should be written.

Reason 8: I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative.

So your true reason for removing the line is to take out a negative fact about UC Riverside. Unfortunately, if you make a list of all the important statistics one would be interested in from a university, they're all included in the article. The problem is that most of these statistics are not favorable when it comes to UCR. There's really no way to change the fact that when compared to other UC's, UCR is usually at the bottom or near the bottom in just about everything (except for pollution) - and this is easily substantiated in just about any University-wide publication. HOWEVER, there's a difference between relaying the FACTS about UCR (which are quite negative from an objective standpoint) and BIAS. By removing important facts and sugar-coating others, you are actually INTRODUCING positive bias! As it stands now, the article is an accurate portrayal of UCR. I truly and honestly believe that.

Reason 9: You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this.

So in the absence of any other good argument, you're going to simply revert because the guy didn't sign his name? Unless you can produce a Wiki article that permits reversion of unsigned article changes, I think you're definitely out of line here.

UCRGrad 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out. TheRegicider 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I dissected out 9 of your counterarguments above, and I addressed all of them. I notice that you were able to defend 0 of them. You are now clinging to one of your MINOR arguments as to why the line should be removed, yet in re-reading what you wrote, you failed to EXPLAIN the problem with the "presentation" of the line. A few things: - just because YOU have a problem with the way a sentence is "presented," does not give you the prima facie right to delete it. Otherwise, you are out of line. - if you have a problem with the presentation of a sentence, you are expected to EXPLAIN WHY. It is not sufficient to say "I don't like it, I'm deleting it. That's it." Until you explain why, the line stays in. - Like it or not, not everyone is going to SIGN their edits. That's just life. However, when individuals make edits AND EXPLAIN WHY in discussion, then you are expected to address their comments. If you do a blanket revert, you are behaving inappropriately here.

UCRGrad 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

I have a problem with this sentence in the article:

"Approximately 1 out of every 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, based on a freshman retention rate of 85%, the lowest of any UC"

The problem is that it says the same thing twice. 1 out of every 8 means 85% retention rate, so it's stupid to say the same thing twice in a row. 85% is the more accurate of the two numbers, so I think that's the one that should stay in the article, but certainly not both of them should stay. –Tifego _{21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

That sounds reasonable to me.

Insert-Belltower 22:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regicider Issue

Sorry Regicider, you lose. UCRGrad has given you 8 reasons why the statistic should stand, and your response: "since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out." Not only does this statement show a lack a maturity it also shows an unwillingness to be reasonable. You have lost my respect. I will REVERT any changes that you make until you apologize to UCRgrad and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.

Good Day Insert-Belltower 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've compromised to acknowledge the statistics necessity. However in it's current form, it doesn't provide context. It is entirely appropriate to compare the giving rate to UCLA and UC Davis as the article does it numerous times already. I couldn't care less about your respect, nor will I apologize. You promise to revert anything I do is no different than my promise to keep that stat out in its current form--so much for your maturity eh? TheRegicider 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Your twisted logic is mindbloggling. I would suggest that you take some courses in critical thinking, which you might find a local community college. You have not made the case for why this particular statistic needs to be in a context.

Insert-Belltower 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reasonable objection to the posting of 2 other similar university's alumni rates. Since the average reader has no real knowledge of alumni giving rates, lets provide them with adequate context. The stats still show that UCR is below, so whats the problem unless you're trying to mislead. TheRegicider 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is too arbitrary to cherry pick alumni giving rates of two universities of YOUR choosing. The only objective way is to use the method from US News and World report -- that is, give the school's OVERALL ALUMNI GIVING RANK along with the alumni giving percentage. UCR ranks LAST in the nation. Stop trying to sugar-coat it and add positive bias. It's LAST. DEAD LAST. And that fact must be included. UCRGrad 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address anything Regicider says, until he shows more respect.

68.73.54.149 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I'm sorry for not giving you your just due sir. Cry me a river. TheRegicider 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Service

According to Washington Monthly, UCR ranks number one in the nation for community service. ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.charts.html ) With all the negativity this stat needs to go up. I'm not sure whether it fits better under student life, academics, or history. Let me know and I'll put it up. TheRegicider 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's cited, I don't have a problem with it.

Insert-Belltower 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it makes most sense under student life, or if there's no good place to put it in there, then under academics. –Tifego _{23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

student life is good

Images & captions

Why does this article have so many images? Most articles with this many images also have a lot more text than this.

• I especially wonder why there are 2 different pictures of ugly brown construction sites in this article (one in "Academics" and another in "Student life"). Lots of places have construction going on all over, but there's no case for it being so prominently displayed in an article unless some huge proportion of the campus is perpetually in a state of construction. Also, the caption on the first construction image sounds quite hateful (albeit subtly): "Construction in the core of campus. Typical brown-brick buildings to the left, right, and background, alongside tree/cement landscaping". The image already speaks for itself as far as building color and where the trees and cement are, and saying it's "in the core of the campus" is no more necessary or relevant than saying it's "on campus".
• The DDR image is kind of random. I think if anything else should go (in addition to the first one above), it's probably that.
• About the note, "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." This seems unnecessary to me, especially because the photo has nowhere near enough "brown haze" in it to honestly describe it as "obscuring" the bottom third of the sky. –Tifego _{23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Unless anyone has anything better I can take some in the next few days. As for the construction, there are only 3 projects currently ongoing at UCR so you're right it does skew reality. TheRegicider 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1.) I would be okay with the following: "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, as seen in the bottom third of the sky."

2.) I don't have a problem with the caption under the representative picture of construction, I'm not sure why you see it as "hateful." It is a growing campus, and that should be illustrated.

3.) I like the belltower picture, it's a key symbol of the school.

Insert-Belltower 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The belltower picture is fine, and I didn't say otherwise, but there's no need to have two construction site pictures, unless mounds of dirt and "typical brown-brick buildings" are also key symbols of the school. And "typical" is the word I had the biggest problem with in the caption. It's too vague a term, and not very neutral-sounding to describe anything as "typical". (It also didn't help that both of the construction captions used that same word.) I mean, if it's important that it's typical, it would be much better to say what exactly that means, or at least use a slightly less-loaded word such as "common". –Tifego _{01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

By the way, I'm not extremely adamant about that. Just take it as my opinion that it was a (minor) violation of WP:NPOV. –Tifego _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I would be okay with the use of the word "common." However, it is important that the caption be clear and detailed.

Insert-Belltower 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording

"Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution."

Who refers to it as that? It should be worded differently in the article. –Tifego _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I think that this is completely appropriate. I don't understand what is the problem?

Insert-Belltower 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem, in short, is that we don't know who refers to it as a smog belt, and without a source, the assertion is unverifiable. The ideal sentence would look something like this:

"In 2005, emeritus professor and Harvard graduate Dr. Bert Kopecsky decried Riverside air standards in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying, 'Look at the higher concentration of particulates and nitrates. This place is practically a smog belt'.(footnote)" Deltabeignet 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Racism in the Inlande Empire isn't relevant in an article about UCR. The Inland Empire is massive, with millions of people. The placement of the article is clearly an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association. The point is that UCR is most diverse campus in the UC system, racism clearly is not a problem. TheRegicider 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheRegicider on this point, although I would assume good faith re: the claim that the edit is "an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association". Discussion of racism would be relevant if someone provided evidence that there are significantly more hate or bias motivated incidents at UCR than at other UC schools, or other schools in California. TheRegicider said in the edit summary that we don't discuss Richmond gangs in the Berkeley article. As another example, I'm from Ventura County, CA, where we've had a problem with Nazi skinhead gangs for a while. Do we discuss this in University of California, Santa Barbara, California State University, Channel Islands, California Lutheran University, etc.? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's Justification of Need to Include Article on Racism

Summary of objections by others:

Objection: Racism in the Inlamd Empire is not relevant in an article about UCR.

Racism IS relevant because: UCR is not an isolated entity - it is integrated geographically and socioeconomically with the city/county of Riverside, as well as the surrounding community. It is not possible to discuss a university EXCLUSIVE of these associated factors.

Objection: Placement of article is an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association.

Absolutely not. If you read the article, right at the top of Student Life it says "The 2006 U.S. News & World Report College Rankings place UC Riverside #4 nationwide for campus diversity." The reader infers that UCR is a haven for people of color and embraces people of all ethnic backgrounds. Failure to mention that UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of an area KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime is incredibly misleading. The information MUST be balanced in order to have a neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article will have a positive bias.

Objection: Discussion of racism only pertinent if someone provided evidence that there is more hate crime at UCR than other UC schools, or other schools in CA.

Discussion of race in general is 100% pertinent to a university article. Information on ethnic distribution, ethnic diversity, etc. is almost always included in brochures, college websites, it's discussed in US News, Princeton Review, etc. However, if something is unusual about race relations at a school, especially one that claims to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, it deserves mention. I agree that if someone actually studied rates of hate crime at UCR vs. other UC schools, it should be included for that reason. But in the absence of such a study, discussion of hate is STILL important in this article for the above reasons. Furthermore, even IF the rate of hate crime isn't the highest in the UC system, it STILL deserves mention because of that fact that UCR is located in such a geographical location that exposes people to hate crime.

Objection: We don't discuss Richmond gangs in Berkeley article, therefore, should not discuss racism in UCR article. Corollary: There are Nazi skinheads in Ventura County, should we discuss them in the USCB, CSU Channel Islands, and CA Lutheran Univ articles?

There are a lot of things in the Berkeley article that are not mentioned that we mention here, and vice versa. It really isn't relevant if Richmond gangs aren't mentioned. HOWEVER, if someone were add information that was a) referenced, and b) demonstrated how pervasive a problem Richmond gangs were, then it SHOULD be included. However, Berkeley and the east bay is compartmentalized and the Richmond gangs do not impact the Berkeley campus or immediately adjacent area that much. It's a nonparallel example. I have an article that demonstrates how pervasive racism is in the Riverside area.

For the above reasons, I am confident that the information about racism in Riverside is important to this article about UC Riverside, in order to balance the potentially biasing data that UCR is the most diverse campus in the UC system, and #4 for ethnic diversity in the nation.

The article you cite does demonstrate one thing: there are Nazi punks in the Inland Empire. But there are Nazi punks in a lot of places. Here's the chain of logic you seem to be going by:

• There is racist violence in the Inland Empire.
• UCR is in the Inland Empire.
• Therefore, there could be racist violence at UCR, or affecting UCR students.

Your logical breakdown does not accurately reflect what I wrote. I NEVER made the conclusion that there could be racist violence at UCR, nor that it could affect UCR students. The point of contention HERE is IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE HIGH INCIDENCE OF HATE CRIME IN RIVERSIDE in this article? I believe the answer is YES. This is the question we are considering. UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Inland Empire Nazis could go after UCR students, but that doesn't mean they will. I can see how verifiable information about this problem, from reliable sources, might be relevant in articles like Riverside, California and Inland Empire (California). But unless there's a verifiable source that says UCR is a dangerous place for minorities, the passage about neo-Nazis is inappropriate in this article, and is POV original research.

Nowhere did my contribution to the article state or imply that UCR was a dangerous place for minorities. Please re-read what was added. UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I have reverted your edits. szyslak (t, c, e) 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Listing hate crime incidents on campus or immediately adjacent is fine, but a general perception of "hate" miles away from the campus is irrelevant. Calwatch 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, the question we are considering here is: IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HIGH RATE OF HATE CRIME IN RIVERSIDE IN A UC RIVERSIDE ARTICLE? The answer is YES for many reasons:

1) We mention that UCR ranks #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity. Yet, we don't mention that UCR is located in an area known for its racial hate crime? There is a clear IMBALANCE of information in this article. 2) If we do not mention hate crime, then we should not mention ethnic diversity on campus. Neutral POV implies a balance of information, not a positive bias. 3) However, race SHOULD be mentioned. Ethnic distribution, ethnic diversity, etc. are very frequently considered when colleges are profiled in US News, Princeton Review, recruitment brochures, etc. Issues with race ARE pertinent to an encyclopedia article 4) UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. When people look for information regarding a college, they want to know what the environment is like - the weather (i.e. sunny, rainy, etc.), what the surrounding city is like (i.e. urban, things to do, etc.), what the crime rate is, etc. It goes without saying that students do not isolate themselves to the campus area. 5) Calwatch, please read the article I referenced. The rate of hate crime is not just a "perception of hate miles away." It is actual racial VIOLENCE and organized white supremacy IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND the rest of the Inland Empire. 6) It's a huge problem. 148 hate crimes in 2004 = a crime against an ethnic minority is committed EVERY TWO to THREE DAYS. THIS is not a trivial matter. To put things into perspective, the hate crime rate is DECREASING throughout California, but INCREASING in Riverside.

UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Riverside County is huge. By your own admission, many of the UCR students commute from outside the area, including many from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Still others are suitcase students and flee Thursday evening or Friday afternoon, so it doesn't matter. Name one single hate crime conviction at UCR or in student housing. You can't. herefore, the change will be reverted. Calwatch 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please address ALL 6 of my reasons above, before reverting for the sake of reverting. If you are truly correct in your standpoint, then you should have no problem at all. By quickly reverting and providing a half-hearted response to 1 of my 6 reasons, I'm assuming that you really don't have good reasons to delete my addition to the article. As such, I am perfectly justified in reinstating what I contributed.

To address what YOU wrote, I NEVER wrote that UCR students "flee to LA and OC." (if you disagree, please quote where I have written that fact.) On the contrary, I believe a large portion of students that commute home on the weekends are actually from the Inland Empire anyway. Students from further away probably would elect to stay nearby. Nevertheless, all of this is irrelevant and constitutes original research. Please let me remind you that the standard here is VERIFIABILITY. I have provided VERIFIABLE and WELL-REFERENCED information in the form of my contribution to the article. It is 100% IRRELEVANT whether I can "name one hate crime that has occured at UCR." I have provided verifiable facts, and I have met the threshold here at Misplaced Pages. I have provided 6 reasons why the information belongs in this article.

This article is about UC Riverside. It's not about what a horrible place Riverside is. Of course conditions in the surrounding area are a vital part of the college experience. That doesn't mean we have to go into detail about every possible event outside campus that might affect UCR students. That's what the article Riverside, California is for. In addition, the discussion about campus diversity has no bearing whatsoever on whether the passage about hate crimes belongs in this article. It's a false dichotomy to argue that one "requires" the other. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear szyslak, I agree this article is about UC Riverside. However, if there are so-called horrible facts about the surrounding city, then so be it - they need to be mentioned as well because for the billionth time, UCR is geogragraphically, socioeconomically, culturally, etc. integrated with Riverside. I disagree that mention of UCR being #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity does NOT mandate the mention of hate crime in Riverside. When we state that UCR is one of the most diverse universities in the country, it is not obvious to people unfamiliar with the area that there is so much widespread racism nearby. In fact, one might even infer that ethnic minorities are welcomed and celebrated, whereas this may or may not be the case. Regardless, for these reasons, it is misleading to mention diversity alone because of its connotations. This is why it is so important to mention the high rate of hate crime. Finally, I agree that we should not mention every event that occurs in the Inland Empire. However, the issue with racism is so severe that the region sees one hate crime every two or three days. That's a LOT!! Important and significant facts about the region deserve mention. UCRGrad 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual information or not, it has little to no relevance. It's clearly an inflammatory statistic posted by someone who has thus far had nearly all their edits reverted. Hate Crimes in a geographic area hundreds of miles by hundreds of miles is not appropriate in an article about a SINGLE school. Unless the article sheds light on a university problem or highlights a growing on-campus trend then it's not appropriate. General things, like "there is smog" "lots of restuarants" etc etc, are necessary to give readers perspective, but anything beyond that is unneccesary and irrelevant. Next are we going to detail housing prices, road conditions, natural wildlife and so on and so forth? Going into so much detail about a specific problem while you make no such effort in other areas creates a skewed perspective and thus deviates from neutrality. The stat is a no go. TheRegicider 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree (this makes at least 4 people now) that it's not relevant to the article. A 10-word aside about it might be appropriate, but not that amount of detail, and not in the introductory paragraph of the "student life" section. It doesn't matter if it's the worst university in the world, the article doesn't need to resort to actively bashing it at every possible opportunity to get that point across (indeed, I fear it is getting that point across already despite it likely not being true). This information is both an unbalancingly negative point, and an irrelevant one in this context (note that an equally detailed positive or neutral description of some aspect of the surrounding area would also be inappropriate there). UCRGrad is the sole supporter of its inclusion AFAICT and it has been removed all 4 of the times it was added within the last day or so. –Tifego _{07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

With regard to relevance, I have already explained extensively why my latest contribution to the article is relevant. Since you failed to directly address 90% of it, I will go ahead and cut/paste and make some additions: 1) We mention that UCR ranks #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity. Not mentioning that UCR is situated in an area well-documented to have a high rate of hate crime would be misleading and imbalanced. Hate crime MUST be mentioned if we mention how racially diverse UCR is. 2) As a whole, Issues of race and ethnicity are germaine to an article about a university. When magazines, periodicals, college books, brochures, etc. review or describe colleges, it would be unusual NOT to find some mention of race. 3) UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. When people look for information regarding a college, they want to know what the environment is like - the weather (i.e. sunny, rainy, etc.), what the surrounding city is like (i.e. urban, things to do, etc.), what the crime rate is, etc. If hate crimes are committed ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE DAYS, then this obviously deserves mention. 4) Your argument that we should not mention the pervasive problem of racial crime because it affects an area of several hundred square miles is irrelevant. By your reasoning, we should not mention the smog either, because the smog covers an even wider area - the entire southern CA. The fact is, UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of the Inland Empire, and issues of race are not isolated by an imaginary dotted line that surrounds the physical campus, just as the smog does not stop at the end of University Ave. 5) You listed some non-parallel examples, such as why aren't we compelled to detail housing prices, road condiions, natural wildlife, etc.? The simple answer is that these issues are NOT important in an article about a university, whereas race relations fits well because of the aforementioned reasons. On that note, average rent and housing affordabilbity WOULD be relevant to this article because not all students live in the dorms, and major publications frequently discuss these issues about colleges as well. 6) You make a lot of blanket statements, like "this is irrelevant," but you don't expand on that any further. Just so you know, it is insufficient to simply dismiss someone's contributions without explaining WHY - remember, it's not "your opinion" that counts, but how you justify your opinions. 7) I'm not sure where you got the statistic that 90% of my contributions have been reverted because I am actually one of the principal authors to this article. In contrast, your objections have been frequently dismissed by neutral third parties who don't actually attend UCR. I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here.

With regard to Tifego's comments, it is irrelevant that 4 of the same individuals who routinely object to ANY contributions that shed a negative light on he campus are again not satisfied with my latest contribution. This is not an election. We are not tallying votes here. I have provided excellent arguments as to why the information should remain, and I have met the standard set by Misplaced Pages. Maybe instead of doing blanket reverts, the four of you should get together and actually provide reasonable counterarguments, seeing as how the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window. UCRGrad 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Both UCRGrad and TheRegicider have violated the three-revert rule on this article, as I reported on WP:AN/3RR. Please, let's deal with this like adults and stop the edit warring and personal attacks. Do you guys want this page protected again? szyslak (t, c, e) 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict; this is responding to UCRGrad's last post) As I said, it's not the fact that it's negative that is the problem. That would have been inappropriate even if it had been positive. And I haven't been doing blanket reverts - in fact, I said it would be reasonable to replace it with a ~10 word aside, which would be considerably more encyclopedic while getting across the same point (with the same reference). And as others have said, it's the way you are presenting the information that is the problem, not the fact that it's negative.

"This is not an election. We are not tallying votes here."

Yes, But the process works by concensus. There is a concensus against what you are adding despite your previous arguments, because evidently we don't consider those arguments to be good enough. You have not presented any argument whatsoever for why there needs to be so much detail about the activities of racist groups in the same general region as this school.

Also, in response to

"I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here."

To give you some perspective, one could easily say a similar thing of you:

"I'm wondering if UCR graduates like UCRGrad should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to degrade the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here."

Such statements simply don't belong here, they are incivil at the very least.

–Tifego _{09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

A compromise

I've attempted to make a compromise, mentioning the problem without going overboard explaining it (the reader can always click the reference link to get more info). What does everyone think? –Tifego _{10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

And now for something completely different

Yo, this article is whack, we gotta mention the hate, man, the hate against the minorities - did u guys read that link? It's bad, yo. I know the 909. 909er 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A casual browse of this discussion shows there to be a vast divergence of opinion. I do not object to a more candid and seemingly specific paragraph that would describe the depth of this racism problem that is all too pervasive in our society.

Alas, not to tell the whole truth, casts an undue sugary flavour over the image of the University-- as if to paint facade.

HisBundleAblation 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

note: The above two posts (by 909er and HisBundleAblation) were most likely made by UCRGrad. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

This is sad.. Who ever this UCRgrad is.. He is for sure an UCR hater.. and you can tell it's a fact.. PERIOD!! I KNOW I KNOW.. this is a personal statement. Well.. that’s what he is appeared to be. bowbowx17:35, 21 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.248.239 (talk • contribs)

Reference numbers?

The reference numbers at the bottom don't seem to line up with the numbers in the article. For instance, I click on the little and it scrolls down to entry #14 in the refs. This is a bit confusing and it makes it difficult to determine which reference something is referring to without comparing the {{ref}} and {{note}} tag contents. –Tifego _{17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Dear UCRGrad

The message we are trying to convey is: "UCR ranks #4 nationwide for campus diversity." Period. This alone is not a biased sentence, neither positive or negative. Your interpretation of it as a positively biased sentence occurs in the context you put it in – the surrounding cities and the racial problems that occur – but your support for the correlation between UCR and the communities responsible for these hate crimes is very much lacking (see below). I don't accept the statement above as biased and I contend that it be left as simple. By adding that the surrounding community is less diverse and that hate crimes are of significance to note, you are required to mention that: ... however, hate crimes are nearly non-existent at UCR (add citation). It is here that we’ve returned to a balanced viewpoint, and remained ON-TOPIC; and it is also here where it is apparent that a discussion on "hate crime" does nothing for the wiki entry!

So... for this statement to remain the burden is on you to:

1. Prove (with census data) that hate crimes are reported every two to three days and that this distinctly sets apart the Riverside community from any other community across the U.S. (In other words – is the national average for hate crime in similar sized cities significantly lower?). If the IE is up X% and California is down Y%, this doesn't imply significance in the number of hate crimes occuring - there's no comparison between equally populated cities. However, my real contention is in how you draw correlations between UCR and its community:

2. Prove that these hate crimes are committed in Riverside (or better yet, the surrounding areas of UCR). Stating that UCR is not an isolated entity with regard to the hate crimes of the Inland Empire is naïve and incorrect. You are correct in saying that the community interacts with the university, but have failed to link the hate crimes of distant cities OR Riverside itself with the crime or even the socioeconomic status of the students attending - which is the focus of the article.

I’ve already "fixed" it once and it was changed back to the inadequate form. If you (UCRGrad) understand what I’m explaining to you I would like you to revert it back yourself. Listen to the advice people are giving you - I was astounded when I first started reading this entry on how much "negative vibe," non-relevant information is included. In other words, it is obvious to me and others that you want wikipedia's vieweres to see UCR through your tainted viewpoint (it's so bad, I read about your apparent bias off a message board unrelated to Misplaced Pages before even reading the entry for myself). Pimpclinton 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief Response: 1) I have already addressed AD NAUSEUM how UCR is integrated with its community. You seem like a reasonable guy. I would expect you to read and quote those arguments and address them. 2) The mere fact that hate crimes occur once every 2-3 days makes it significant, and enough to be included in this article. Your requirement that I make comparisons to other cities, blah blah, is irrelevant. If you have a valid reference that supports your belief that hate crimes are rare on campus, then I would not object to your adding it. Fair is fair. 3) The reference speaks for itself. The statistics are valid for the Inland Empire, which includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This is the exact same area I would expect students to be exposed to when they venture off campus. This is the community that students rent apartments in. 4) You didn't fix anything. You just censored the article to your liking because you don't want people to know about the racial hate in Riverside. 5) As I've already expained, there's a difference between BIAS and conveying negative facts. You and other are confusing the two. Facts are facts, and many aspects of UCR are not the greatest - i.e. the reputation, academics, the smog, the athletics, you name it. BIAS would be "UCR sucks." Objectivity is merely stating the fact. UCR is ranked #85. That's that. A solid article would make comparisons to other colleges. I did just that. You and others probably believe that this article should only contain POSITIVE facts about UCR, and negative facts should be "sugar-coated" so the don't sound that bad. I'm sorry, but the standard on Misplaced Pages is VERIFIABILITY and BALANCED point of view. The article achieves just that. UCRGrad 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's responses to PimpClinton in bold

Hey UCRGrad! You made some very good points and I’d like to address them. However, before we further this civil debate I feel we need to clear up points and define parameters you’ve made supporting the current state of the racism reference. As you have suggested I have compiled your quotes to UCR’s role in its community/Inland Empire:

1) I have already addressed AD NAUSEUM how UCR is integrated with its community:

“UCR is not an isolated entity - it is integrated geographically and socioeconomically with the city/county of Riverside, as well as the surrounding community. UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of an area KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime…. UCR is located in such a geographical location that exposes people to hate crime. UCR is located in an area known for its racial hate crime. UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. It is actual racial VIOLENCE and organized white supremacy IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND the rest of the Inland Empire. …so-called horrible facts about the surrounding city, then so be it - they need to be mentioned as well because for the billionth time, UCR is geogragraphically, socioeconomically, culturally, etc. integrated with Riverside. ….there is so much widespread racism nearby. …the issue with racism is so severe that the region sees one hate crime every two or three days.”

- You have tried to show that neo-Nazism and other hate crimes of the IE are applicable to the areas surrounding UCR – similar to “drawing in” a puzzle piece of an incomplete puzzle (a correlation study). However, you have not shown statistical data of hate crimes in the specific areas that students interact with. Would you agree that “significant areas surrounding UCR where the majority (say 80%) of non-commuting students interact with their community” is within the effective areas of UCPD? Would you say the data collected at UCPD of the campus and the surrounding community displays stronger evidence of hate crimes in the area (versus your reference to hate crime in the IE)? If it was shown by data provided by UCPD that hate crimes were significantly lower in the surrounding area (apart from racially/ethnically biased crimes committed on the campus itself, which was said to total 3 in the past 10 years) – would it be sufficient to say that your article does not adequately describe the surrounding UCR community? Are hate crimes evenly distributed across the IE?

Again, the questions you ask aren’t really relevant. Let me illustrate: Suppose we say the pollution levels are high in Riverside County. We have a good reference for this, and we state that “Riverside has high pollution” in the article. At first glance, that seems perfectly appropriate. Well, what if someone were to say “Well, you don’t have a study that looks JUST at UCR. It’s possible that the smog above UCR is very low.” Sure, it’s possible, but that’s ridiculous. More importantly, it’s irrelevant. The article never said that UCR had high pollution, just that Riverside has high pollution. The statement reflects what is available in a verifiable source, and THAT’S IT. It is unnecessary to say, “Well, we need data on where UCR students travel and what areas of Riverside County have more pollution than others.” No we don’t. Because the statement only said “Riverside has high pollution.” It did not say “UCR students are exposed to high pollution levels.” Perhaps one may INFER this, and such an inference is 100% reasonable given that we know that smog spread out, but we can only say what is available in a verifiable source. And that’s EXACTLY what I’ve done. And I’ve met the burden required by Misplaced Pages. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask these questions is that many of us feel that there are disparities in crime rates and location of groups that commit biased crimes between sub-communities and cities in the IE; and therefore mentioning it on the UCR wikipedia entry may/may not have merit (I assume the article’s claims are substantiated by govt statistics). With regard to this I should add:

The statistics are available in a VERIFIABLE source, and it is cited. On wikipedia, we are not required to use what you’re asking – a rigorous or authoritative source, such as government stats, just verifiable sources. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

- UCR and its students are as geographically and socioeconomically “identical” to the rest of Riverside and the IE in a comparative fashion to that of the Downtown Riverside slums vs. rural Sage vs. Rancho Cucamonga/ Big Bear/ Redlands/ Palm Springs. The fact is- the IE is very distinct, home to urban, suburban and rural areas and also home to a wide variety of political thought, religion, and crime rates/types in sub-communities within cities. I’ve lived in Hemet for the past 23 years and can personally vouch to differences between what I call the “conservative bubble” (what I refer to it) of Hemet and rural areas of the sort and more progressive, suburban areas found in the IE (the “younger” communities in the IE).

I disagree that UCR and its students are geographically/socioecnomically IDENTICAL to the rest of Riverside. I never wrote that, and you have misquoted me. Integrated, yes. Identical, no. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

- Most importantly, however, is the fact that neither UCR nor the IE are “KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime”

According to the reference I provided, this is a true statement. And guess what: one crime every 2-3 days *is* a high incidence of something so atrocious. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the incidence of hate crimes in the IE is nearly matches the incidence of hate crime in California overall (using http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_35 for population data of California and hate crime incidences reported; and using US census bureau found here http://www.ieep.com/html/pop_trends.htm for population data of the Inland Empire). In other words, Riverside/San Bernardino County is guilty of only the average amount of hate crimes committed throughout California.

I’m very disappointed that you just provided two references that don’t say what you claim them to say. Your FBI link doesn’t show ANY crime rates based on CITY/COUNTY. Your second link only shows the population of Riverside/IE. I don’t know where the heck you came up with this conclusion that Riverside hate crime rates are average. ON THE OTHER HAND, the VERIFIABLE SOURCE that I provided clearly states you are wrong: “Seismic changes in the racial make-up have corresponded with a steady rise in hate crimes, including a particularly vicious spike in racially motivated violence and harassment in the past two years. During that period, as hate crimes dropped 10% statewide in California, the number of reported hate crimes in the Inland Empire shot up 20%. Last year, there were 148 hate crimes reported in the Inland Empire, most of them committed by racist Skinheads and other white supremacists.” http://www.alternet.org/story/27461/?comments=view&cID=53268&pID=53243 Finally, you MUST abide by Wiki’s policy that forbids original research. What you were trying to do, by synthesizing two articles (and making a false conslusion) was original research. I have been following Wiki’s policies by providing verifiable sources. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We are concerned with two separate factors here: 1) the diversity of UCR versus the diversity of the surrounding community and 2) the hate crimes committed SPECIFICALLY on the UCR campus versus the hate crimes committed in the surrounding UCR community versus the hate crimes of the IE (which I have already shown to be near equal to the California average). I contend, through the explanations I have given, that the latter information on hate crimes in the IE is irrelevant and detracts from the quality of this entry.

Back to one of my original points. UCR is not geographically or socioeconomically isolated from its surrounding community. Students leave campus to shop at nearby stores, they spend afternoons at the park, they join community service organizations, clubs interact with sponsors, etc. It is standard practice for scholarly articles/publications to discuss the surrounding areas when reporting on universities, and a lot of it has to do with the above reasons. EVEN IF you can provide evidence (which you haven’t) that hate crime on the UCR campus occurs less often (It is also a LOT SMALLER and has fewer ppl), it is STILL IMPORTANT to mention that the area around UCR has a high incidence of racial violence. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating that the UCR surrounding community is related to and/or fits any white-supremist “mold” found throughout the IE displays arrogance and stereotyping – the victim here is the reputation of UCR, unwarranted and unproven.

Unfortunately, I have a verifiable source that supports the concept that the surrounding community supports a high rate of racial violence – and it’s true, I’m sorry to say. I didn’t make this stuff up, nor is it MY opinion. Arrogance, on the other hand, is when people choose to ignore EVIDENCE and insist that they know better. UCRGrad 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating “UCR is the 4th most diverse school in the nation” displays NO bias in its sole entirety – only you, UCRGrad, have defined it as a “positively-biased” feature of UCR that “must be balanced with negative baises.” Even more so, adding that the “surrounding community is less diverse” only detracts from the purpose of the point of the statement.

I have no problem removing “surrounding community is less diverse.” I didn’t add that, someone else did. Secondly, I’m going to say this again: By boasting how ethnically diverse UCR is while failing to mention the high rate of racial violence that occurs in the surrounding area is 100% misleading and constitutes positive bias. Unless you're going to tell me that UCR students NEVER leave the campus or interact with the Riverside community for any reason. I think it goes without saying.

I appreciate your attempt to address my points, but honestly, you provided two references that didn’t say what you claimed they said, you misquoted me, you didn’t understand that you committed original research, and you made up these ridiculous demands on what needed to proven in order to merely add information readily available from a verifiable source. I’d be happy to respond to anything further, but I would appreciate it if you could be more concise. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I motion to modify the statement at hand to simply: “The 2006 U.S. News & World Report College Rankings place UC Riverside at #4 nationwide for campus diversity.” No other “balancing” to this statement is necessary nor pertinent as explained above.

Pimpclinton 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: I agree, but I think there might be some way of including (elsewhere or after some other addition) information about racism in Riverside in a way that is purely providing additional information for the purpose of comparison, without necessarily being there to balance/unbalance anything. Disclaimer: No version of this that's ever been in the article has approached the level of brevity and objectivity (and/or appropriateness of location) necessary for that, AFAICT. –Tifego _{05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

In what way is this necessary? Do not characterize me as one insensitive to racial issues, but I can state with statistical evidence that hate crimes in the IE are equal to that of hate crimes throughout California (see my above discussion). Any reference to racism within Riverside should also mention this, and by this point we've ventured too off-topic. I am not entirely opposed to mentioning the lack of diversity in Riverside for comparison - but not as an act of "balancing" the statement of campus diversity. Pimpclinton 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I am not entirely opposed to mentioning the lack of diversity in Riverside for comparison - but not as an act of "balancing" the statement of campus diversity." That was entirely my point; I was in no way arguing it's necessary for balancing or necessary at all. –Tifego _{15:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

"I counter-motion that we expand the statement about racial violence in Riverside because it is so significant. Half a sentence just doesn't cut it, when we talk about the UCR library and its fantasy collections for an entire paragraph." UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to hold your hand through this: 1) open my two “synthesized” sources (fbi.gov and US census bureau data are official government statistics. Please refrain from falsely accusing me of synthesizing my data - they're more legitimate sources than what you've presented). Take the number of hate crimes reported statewide in California and divide it by the population of California (1,393 / 35,893,799 = 3.88 E -5 is the rate of incidence for California). Next, take the number of hate crimes for the IE and divide that by the population in the IE (Riverside Co. + San Bernardino Co.) (148 / (1,782,650 + 1,859,678) = 4.06 E -5 is the rate of incidence for the IE). Hate crime rates in the IE are not statistically significantly higher than that of all of California. Furthermore, data easily obtained from UCPD would undoubtedly show a lower rate of hate crime incidence per capita in the surrounding UCR community and much lower (near non-existant) rate of incidence on the campus itself (I can and will provide statistical evidence for this as soon as the records department is open - I am currently going off hearsay from a UCPD employee). Making any implication that UCR, UCR's surrounding area, and Riverside are guilty of significantly high rates of hate crime without mentioning that they're no higher than hate crime rates throughout California is wrong and misleading. Pimpclinton 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What source did you get the number 148 from? That seems to be what UCRGrad is objecting to. –Tifego _{16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Falsely accusing? I checked your FBI link for the THIRD TIME. NONE of the tables list hate crime by region. If you have found this information, you need to link it directly, or at the very minimum, direct your readers as to HOW to find the information on your site. It is INAPPROPRIATE to make a bold statement, claim that your reference supports your statement, and then provide a link that actually does NOT.

1) Your argument about rates of hate crime in Riverside vs. statewide are irrelevant because it constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You have to look up fbi tables, look up population data, and do some math. I already pointed out this to you, yet you still insist on doing some calculations above. This is fine for a scientific journal, but is FORBIDDEN on wikipedia. 2) I have already argued that EVEN IF you have a verifiable source. As a minor point, you can argue all you want that your "supposed" (note the quotes) sources are superior than mine...however MY REFERENCE meets the standard for a verifiable source on wikipedia. 3) You wrote above that hate crime rates in the IE are "not statistically significantly higher" than all of California. Can you please tell us what statistical method you employed, what the p-value was, and whether your analysis was powered to detect a difference? Or did you think you could throw out some buzzwords from Statistics and expect people not to call you on it? Regardless, it's irrelevant, because for the billionth time, original research is not allowed here. Thanks. UCRGrad 15:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The FBI article lists state data (hate crime data and population data), the other source shows region population data, I used your figure of 148 in the region calculation. THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL REASEARCH NOR IS IT SYNTHESIZED - please stop falsely accusing me of this! (Misplaced Pages: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves.") This is a secondary source based on two primary sources - looking them up and simple division does not constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Pimpclinton 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo, man. If u use one source to get hate crime rates, another to get populations, then you have to divide the two numbers to get new figures that haven't been previously published, THAT is original research. Read wikipedia's definition: "Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position." What you did is OBVIOUSLY original research, hands down. Just suck it up and either find a REAL source, or let it go. All this is irrelevant anyway, according to UCRGrad. 909er 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't put anything into the main article, I'm trying to show UCRGrad to be careful in his choice of wording and show him that one still has to infer information in his source. You're correct though, I can't technically add this (until I come up with verifiable evidence of my own - which I said is accessible through UCPD). Pimpclinton 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

note: The previous post by 909er was most likely made by UCRGrad. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

If so, that shows real immaturity and unprofessionalism. I will give UCRGrad the benefit of the doubt but the evidence Tifego yields is compelling. To 909er, “any new interpretation… to advance a position …or, a ‘novel narrative or historical interpretation.’” – pointing out statistical data that requires one-step division for comparative reasons is not a new/novel/historical interpretation. Overall, UCRGrad is inferring and incorrectly correlating information from a “verifiable” source. This source may be verifiable, but UCRGrad has incorrectly interpreted and inferred what this article yields to parts of UCR and its community. I will produce more accurate, verifiable sources based on hate crimes on and around UCR according to statistical data collected by UCPD of UCR - this will be more accurate data for the area and may/may not dispel the "blanketing" statements made in UCRGrad's source.

In addition, the goal of a Misplaced Pages entry on the University of California, Riverside must be that of giving the most accurate representation of how people perceive this campus is in reality and in entirety - including both positive and negative aspects not for the sake of balance but because UCR actually has positive and negative aspects. As this is an inherently subjective task as many points of view are involved and needed to correctly interpret the most accurate portrayal of UCR, collaboration from many people is absolutely mandatory. I would kindly ask UCRGrad to yield to the many other points of view and to value the occurrence of a majority opinion on a topic as he has failed to do. I will contribute as accurately as possible my two decades of experience living in the area and will counter any aspect, regardless of positive or negativeness, so that viewers of the main article receive the most accurate interpretation of the community and area surrounding UCR. Pimpclinton 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's Response

1) If you have to take figures derived from three heterogenous sources, then so some division, and you obtain new (previously unpublished numbers), that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no matter how simple it sounds. 2) Secondly, Pimpclinton also tried to draw a statistical conclusion, by saying that there was "no statistically significant" difference. He did not tell us what statistical test he used, what the p-value was, and how powered the study was. In reality, you cannot make the determination that he did with the data available - it's impossible and there is no applicable statistic test you can do. So he basically tried to pull a fast one on us, and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE. (If you are at all familiar with stats/research, his blunder is immediately obvious.) 3) His calculation was faulty because it uses hetereogenous data. Who knows which particular hate crimes were included/not included in that 148 figure. Was it just racial crime? Was this over the same range of years as the FBI data? Lots of questions. Pimpclinton's numbers are invalid because they are not based on comparable data!!! Again, which is why we don't allow original research here. 4) I agree that UCR has both positive and negative aspects, and that there needs to be contributions from many people. I happen to have extensive knowledge about UC Riverside, and when I originally started editing this article, I noticed that there were many facts that were just flat about incorrect, or based on hearsay (an not actually true, nor verifiable). The quality of this article has improved through my efforts and the efforts of others because it is now well-referenced and comprehensive. 5) It is obvious that there are some people who find the article biased. Many of these people do not understand the difference between presenting true, verifiable, negative facts, and BIAS. They're not the same thing. I have attempted to accurately present the facts about UCR, both good and bad, without introducing bias. 6) Other people who find the article biased are UCR students/alumni/etc. There have been quite a few reverts and complaints from known UCR students and IP addresses coming from the UCR campus. Clearly, the opinions of these individuals are inherently biased in the other direction, which explains some of the complaints as well. 7) To Tifego, I think you've been mostly reasonable so far. But instead of complaining about bias, this and that, blah blah, why don't you suggest changes to wording? Why don't you justify them? If you don't agree with what I say, then explain why. If I address your points, feel free to respond. For instance, instead of just saying that I misrepresented the racial hate reference, explain HOW and WHY. There's no need to whine and make retarded accusations. 8) Finally, I am not the only individual who presents negative facts about UC Riverside. There are many others, and they come and go. 9) Not everyone who reads this article flails their arms and cries "bias, bias, bias." It's typically only a few individuals, and most (but not all) of them have personal biases of their own in the other direction -- i.e. they live in Riverside, they went to UCR, etc. UCRGrad 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1-3) Let me make something clear- this calculation (which I will find homogenous data for) is not going into the main article. I'm not the one actively making claims on the main page that Riverside has elevated hate crime levels - you are and you have no verifiable data for this. The only source you provide, although verifiable, makes a blanketing claim about the IE and it is you that HAS TO INFER AND INTERPRET this as applicable to the UCR community. In an entry about UCR we must only consider the area students most interact with - IE data simply does not meet this standard. So that is that, it is up to both of us to provide hate crime data for the area.

4-5) Well-referenced is great, retaining the positive and negative aspects of UCR that most people agree to and perceive is excellent, I am not opposed to presenting negative facts. What disturbs me is the NEED for "balance" when the original statement isn't biased! Arguing that UCR's diversity must be countered with something negative about UCR (which you have CLEARLY stated) is LUDICROUS! It is this kind of reasoning you exercise that has disrupted and biased this article - selectivity in what is presented. I can work all day presenting verifiable facts about the diverse, overpriced, kid-scarring death trap that Disneyland is - claiming that this information is important because "good" information was already presented. Would one generally get that impression of Disneyland if they were to visit the place? Not at all; there would be negative aspects of Disneyland noticed and these should be addressed accordingly. What I'm trying to get at is if all the students atUC Riverside and the surrounding communities were to be asked for their take on the general atmosphere of hate crimes in their area, how many of them would find that topic significant enough to need mentioning in a professional encyclopedia? Practically none and you know that! Diversity of the area is certainly justified and significant to mention - again, mentioning the lack of diversity in the surrounding area is a FACT worth mentioning and is not a positive or negative aspect. If one were to live near the campus they may/may not notice the lack of diversity - honestly, it is still not the UCR community that lacks in diversity - it is the booney places like Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Homeland etc. that has a noticeable lack of diversity. By your methods, the user researching UCR will read how UCR is diverse (which is very accurate!) and also read how racial tension is high and an incidence of hate crime is high (which is an extremely inaccurate representation of the area!). Yet according to your methods, both are significant and equal to be mentioned in the same manner on the same level of significance. This is biased through selectivity!

6,9) LOGICALLY INVALID. Whether or not the arguer lives in Riverside or is a current or former student at UCR does not constitute him or her disposed or "inherently biased" to support removing a negative aspect about UCR. Refrain from statements that are Ad hominem circumstantial as I have been careful not to fall into the trap of using Appeal to Majority statements to support my reasoning (a side note: again, I emphasize yielding to the majority since articles like these require many points of view for accuracy - I do not and will not state that the majority is always correct, nor do I state that residents and students always act in good faith when editing this entry). Pimpclinton 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding citations

Hey guys, I'm very new to Misplaced Pages (as a Wikipedian, anyways) and after using Misplaced Pages for years I decided I might as well make an account and pitch in. For this article I'd like to add a citation for the "smog belt", but I wanted to check before making any changes to this controversial topic. Is a local news rag like that an OK source for something like this? --ShadowGuy 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a citation would likely be okay, but only if the sentence is changed to state purely the facts that are justified by that citation. In other words, "The Riverside area is referred to as..." should become something more like "Local news sources have referred to the Riverside area as..." or possibly "The Riverside area has been called...". –Tifego _{04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

I, for one, would like to see a source for the smog belt reference. Calwatch 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, feel free (ShadowGuy) to go ahead and add it. Don't worry too much about making a mistake, it's easily fixed if that happens. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Remaining disputes

I was also wondering if anybody could give a summary of any remaining disputes over this article at present. My own interest in this page is that I know somebody who is going to UCR in the fall for grad school on a full ride, and I myself am looking into schools to transfer to from my junior college, so we both are interested in learning and exploring more about this school. Thanks! --ShadowGuy 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the dispute is still ongoing and not showing any indication of dying down. I suggest we start looking into mediation if the situation doesn't improve soon. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

As for a summary, I don't know exactly, but I think there is a concensus that most of the things currently in the article are true, but it is disputed whether the way those facts are being presented is neutral. (An overview of the argument against it being neutral is: In some places negative facts appear to be presented to make something unrelated look bad, and the contents of the article appear to be cherry-picked to put UCR in more of a negative light than a neutral statement of the relevant facts would put it.)

The most specific thing being disputed now is: Should the article explain that Riverside (the large region, in general) is known for racial violence, immediately after mention of the university's #4 ranking for diversity, despite that UCR itself is not at all known to share these problems of racial violence and that diversity is even not directly related to racial violence?

My own (and only) interest in this page is that it bothers me when I see a page on Misplaced Pages that looks to be so incredibly biased as this one was when I saw it (and it looks to be slowly approaching that state again).

–Tifego _{17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, I can't believe you're bringing this up again. I've already explained in at least 5 different places that a) UCR is integrated with its community, b) UCR students have broad exposure to their surrounding area (not just 1 block away), c) it is common for college publications (US News, Princeton, etc.) to discuss surrounding communities. I thougt that right after diversity was the most appropriate place to put information about racial violence. If you can suggset an alternate location, please do. ANYONE CAN SIT BACK AND CRITICIZE. WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO HELP THE ARTICLE, RATHER THAN DEMEAN THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS. UCRGrad 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was explaining to ShadowGuy what the current dispute is, how is that demeaning and criticizing you? Let's focus on the article here... It's not necessary to provide a better alternative to point out that something is wrong. Maybe it would fit better near the “smog belt” section, or, at least, in its own sentence. –Tifego _{02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

And Pimpclinton has already said he is planning to make some changes/additions once he has done enough research to back it up, maybe we should wait and see what he comes up with. –Tifego _{02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, I think that we would not be having this inane conversation if Tigego would be less ignorant and more informed about the facts already presented in the discussion, rather than just recapitulating previously addressed arguments. It there is to be any progress in this forum then there must be thoughtful articulation of ideas, that is, you must formulate and explain your viewpoint. I think that everyone here respects your view, in including myself, however you must fully address the argument's of others before you can even begin to expect your peers to take you seriously.

It looks like you have some things to consider.

UnblockingTau 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics